Arkad wrote:This whole thread really leaves me scratching my head and perplexed as to why people seem to be so misinformed. What conversations are we having at wardroom training? Seems as though we aren't having the right ones (assuming wardroom training is a priority anywhere these days).

Arkad wrote:This whole thread really leaves me scratching my head and perplexed as to why people seem to be so misinformed. What conversations are we having at wardroom training? Seems as though we aren't having the right ones (assuming wardroom training is a priority anywhere these days).

I don't know where the discussions/conversations are happening. As this site declined I was wondering if the conversation was shifting elsewhere. I personally haven't seen the inside of a wardroom with other IWOs since 2011. I've participated in the detailer roadshows when they came through my region, checked out the youtube videos/teleconference Q&A's that have been organized, etc., but I don't feel particularly well-informed of the cutting edge community movements emanating from Maryland/Washington.

1) We hide behind "Sustained Superior Performance" as being the path to reaching our career objectives...it's part of the equation but it's not the entire equation2) We don't get specific in articulating what we value most and therefore leave our juniors left wondering where has the cheese moved to this time?3) People who have specific career objectives are left to guess at what they should do in order to achieve their goals4) People who just want to kick butt, do important work that they love, and let the cards fall where they may are empowered to do just that5) We aren't transparent about the culture of the community and IDC - How many O6s don't want command? How many O5s and O6s turn down milestones? We are not in a good place.6) We have all of these mechanisms at our disposal to clearly measure community health (it's not just inventory and billets) yet we don't use them...AQDs, NOBCs, SSCs...and good people are left to give them meaning in the absence of a clearly articulated strategy/vision7) We let the distribution mentality (tactical and individual in nature) override the community management/leadership (strategic and team oriented)8) Individuals lobby for what they believe to be best for their command/staff and it's often contrary to what we are attempting to do as a community (in large part because we don't communicate the nuts and bolts of what we are attempting to do as a community)9) Wardroom training is non-existent and mentorship is a word from which we continue to steal any meaning.

Personally, I'd like to have the OCM and JO Detailer come up to Norfolk and spend two days with a cross-section of passionate/confused JOs and myself. We need to identify all that you don't understand and develop tools to help you understand. At the same time, this will clearly identify the seams in the strategy and implementation. Let's start by coming up with a list of questions (please no answers) so those in the know can provide vision based facts/insights in favor of well-meaning opinions. While we are at it, let's be prepared to share our confusion with messages being sent (intentional or not) by board results so we can clear the air. A lack of overt and transparent communication gives many reason to believe nepotism is alive and a commitment to a coherent vision is not.

I am not frustrated with this forum in the least. What bothers me is that so little of the conversation leaves the forum and garners the attention of the masses who don't pay attention it. Read "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" and let us know how functional we really are.

Very telling conversation below demonstrating our struggle to find unifying/common understanding of what we are doing. If SIGINT and EW are Cyber, I could infer cyberspace = electromagnetic spectrum = modulation space = ether. So, cyber is ether (using here as ~17th century scientific term for description of forces in the universe without material properties)?? I don't see it that way. I would sooner say cyber is part of SIGINT and/or EW (a child of SIGINT/EW, really), as computer signals ultimately are required to travel along comms paths which are already defined - whether wired or wireless (2.4 GHz, fiber, cable, twisted pair, doesn't really matter). "Operating" in cyberspace is collection, mapping, or manipulation (same thing as SIGINT, Nodal analysis, and EW). It isn't different. Sure, there are nuances specific to networks/computers, and yes, it requires separate, new skills. However, the point is what we do isn't conceptually different than what we did decades ago and all the talk of what cyber is and isn't only serves as a diversion and confuses people. We haven't redefined or transformed what we do. We may be redefining or transforming the tools/efforts required to support operations, who is supported/supporting (enter argument here on who, ultimately, should be the supported folks and whether or not we have it right today), or even how we do it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to collecting and/or disrupting communications, although it is certainly prudent to understand how others perceive "cyber" in order to ensure the ability for our folks to do their jobs. The description of what we do - SIGINT, EW, Cyber - is a suitable marriage between what we do and maintaining our ability to support what we do.

For the sake of semantics: SIGINT and EW are both phrases with adjectives used to qualify nouns (signals intelligence, electronic warfare). Cyber isn't a noun - it is a prefix (or, more liberally, an adjective) which should likewise modify a noun, as it qualifies nothing on its own. Perhaps in usage we should say cyber operations (very vague), cyber intelligence (better), cyber warfare (better). If we all understood what (noun) we were talking about when we use the term, we'd be much better able to inculcate understanding in our junior officers and in our wardrooms and better able to make quality decisions about things like AQDs, billets, required skill sets, etc, etc. I'm not sure we are there, yet, and I think it will take some time before we are.

I think the Foundational Principles are sound. We need the implementation plan! We have a FCC Strategy, but no tasks yet. Without tasks, it's shelfware. Intent was to inspire specific action. If it is occurring, the team needs to know.

Arkad wrote:COMEVIL clearly is engaged. Anyone else have questions they want answered or do we really think we understand everything?

I thought the other questions he asked (in addition to the one regarding the Foundational Principles) were very valid, as well. They're some of the same questions I would ask if I were around well-informed and/or senior IWOs.

1

Last edited by Sum1 on Sun Oct 04, 2015 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.